Perri Nelson's Website 

What sound does a senator make?

How about "Oink" or maybe "Squeal".

All three of the current major party presidential candidates backed the DeMint-McCain amendment to the budget resolution that would place a one-year moratorium on congressional earmarks. Unfortunately, 71 of their peers in the Senate couldn't get behind the idea and the amendment went down in flames.

What a shame. Probably half of the senators that voted for the amendment were co-sponsors.

Both Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray from the State of Washington voted against the amendment. How does that square up with this statement from Maria Cantwell? (Through her spokeswoman, as reported by David Postman back in January)

"Senator Cantwell believes that how our government operates should be open and clear to the public. Transparency in government can only add to the public's confidence that Congress is doing its job for them. If additional transparency also helps to make Congress more aware of its actions and accountability to the public — all the better."

My guess is "not very well". It's one thing to talk about the need for transparency in government. It's another thing entirely to vote against it.

As for Patty Murray, the senior Senator from Washington, her vote is understandable. She recently had a senior moment when she said…

"earmarks are very hard to define."

But then, Patty Murray believes that Senators were elected to tag bills with earmarks. After all, she has said (again via David Postman)…

"What's the option? We could send the money to the Department of Transportation and then let the bureaucrats decide whose projects should be built. Or we can do what we were elected to do and fight for our constituents."

Hey Senator Murray! How about a third option? I know that this might seem like a naive idea but why don't we keep the money here to spend it on local projects? Whatever else it may involve, an earmark involves inefficiency simply because the federal, and possibly local bureaucracy gets in the middle of it in the process of distributing the money. How many layers of bureaucracy the money passes through has an effect on that inefficiency, which is largely a waste. If the money were raised locally, and spent locally, that bureaucracy wouldn't be involved in the first place, so more of the money raised would go toward the project it was raised for, at least in theory.

Of course that type of solution doesn't sit well with Senators, especially with Senators like Patty Murray (D, WA). It's all part of the illusion of "fighting for your constituents".

Many of us pay taxes, including a large portion of our income in federal taxes. When we pay federal taxes a few of us expect that that money should be spent on things that need to be done at the federal level. Senators like Patty Murray though have learned a long time ago that they can fool the people into thinking that they're helping us by spending some of that federal money on local projects.

So... do you need a few billion dollars for that light rail project? Lobby your Senator. Get her to appropriate the funding in an earmark for your state. Voila, a few billion dollars come out of the federal purse to build light rail. Your friend the Senator gets known as a woman who gets things done for her state. She gets re-elected.

It's no wonder that Senator Murray finds it hard to define an earmark. She's too busy trying to look like she's helping her state to allow the definitions to get in the way.

There are a couple of problems with earmarks. First, the money has to come from somewhere, so that means that taxes have to ensure that the government receives sufficient revenue to cover it. Amendment 16 to the federal Constitution says…

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

This amended Article I, section 9 which said in part…

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

So the money comes from income taxes, collected from the people of every state. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER forget that CONGRESS TAXES US! Every single penny that the United States Government gathers in comes from TAXES, and ONLY CONGRESS has the authority to tax us. Bills that result in taxes must originate in the House of Representatives, but they don't become laws unless they are passed by BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS.

The federal government, like all other human institutions, cannot give you something for nothing. When a Senator promises to give you something from the federal government, they have to take the money for it out of your pocket (or someone else's pocket) in the first place. And let's face it, the reason Senators get away with "bringing home the bacon" is they can convince you that "someone else" paid for it.

I can understand a local need, but I don't think that a local problem should be a federal issue. Why should the citizens of New York, California, and Florida (to name a few states at random) pay for a project in Washington or Oregon? Remember the words of Joseph Story (thanks to the Patriot Post)…

"The true test is, whether the object be of a local character, and local use; or, whether it be of general benefit to the states. If it be purely local, congress cannot constitutionally appropriate money for the object. But, if the benefit be general, it matters not, whether in point of locality it be in one state, or several; whether it be of large, or of small extent."

Somehow though, I don't think Patty Murray, Maria Cantwell, or the other 69 Senators that voted against earmark reform last week care what Joseph Story had to say.

I leave you with one final quote, this one from Senator DeMint himself…

"The culture of earmarks is what drives the culture of corruption"

Cross posted to NW Bloggers.